How refreshing to read a true National Socialist understand what Otto Strasser always knew ;

Despite everything that disposed him against it, he remained the loyal Reichwehr agent he was in Munich [in 1919]. . . If he subsequently became a member of a socialist party [Anton Drexler’s German Workers’ Party]—of which he promptly became the leader—it was above all because this party was a nationalist one. Nationalism was always more important to him than socialism—even if his early years should have inclined him to think otherwise . . .

Like Mussolini, Hitler had no heartfelt commitment to socialism. [Drieu refers here not to the Semitic socialism of Marx, with its materialism, collectivism, and internationalism, but rather to the older European corporate socialism, which privileges the needs of family, community, and nation over those of the economy] . . . That’s why he so readily sacrificed the [socialist] dynamism of his movement for the sake of what the Wehrmacht aristocracy and the barons of heavy industry were willing to concede. He thought these alone would suffice in furnishing him with what was needed for his war of European conquest. . .

Fascism failed to organize Europe because it was essentially a system of the “juste milieu” —a system seeking a middle way between

communism and capitalism. . .

Fascism failed because it did not become explicitly socialist. The narrowness of its nationalist base prevented it from becoming a European socialism . . . "

Franco actually offered to join the war ----IF Germany began an invasion of England. Hitler considered Franco's terms unreasonable, and the alliance never materialized although Spain did later send a division of volunteers to fight the Soviet Union (the Blue Division).

Perhaps Franco saw that Hitler was going to make the mistake of not invading England, and he pressed Hitler to do the right thing.

A land invasion of England is not be the unique reason. It was about taking over French colonies in Africa, and especially Morocco. (What a bad taste !) Hitler wanted to manage his new ally in Pétain's France as giving colonies might take too long negotiations and time was lacking. Don't forget Madagascar for Jews.

Another side was that Franco was so loquacious, not leaving so much time to Hitler to speak. (Was he worst than Fidel Castro?)
So a personal character conflict might have arisen.

Quote:

Relations between Franco and Hitler were a clash of titanic egos. They met only once, on October 23, 1940. The Spaniard arrived late because his train was delayed and not as a deliberate slight to Hitler. He indulged in long-winded talk and put forward a lot of conditions for joining the war, asking mainly for new colonies in Africa. Hitler liked to monopolise conversations and found Franco surprisingly loquacious who insisted on speaking about himself.

The Fuhrer was bored with Franco's long discourses on Morocco’s importance for Spain and personal anecdotes of a military campaign there. Hitler flew into a rage after the meeting. Later he termed Franco a “Latin charlatan”.

That Spain did not join in was, as Hastings says, because “the moments at which the Spanish were willing to fight never coincided with those at which the Germans thought their price for doing so worth paying”.

Spain made up for this by sending its elite "Blue Division" to fight alongside the Germans on the Russian front. Franco’s regime had an ambiguous attitude towards the Jewish refugees of the Holocaust and a plan to invade Portugal, a plan but never the intention to do so, says Payne.

It provided real help to the Axis forces, from building observation posts in Gibraltar, collecting information and passing them on to the Germans and allowing the refuelling of German U-boats in its ports and refuelling of Italian bombers. Britain paid millions of dollars to Franco to keep Spain out of the war but there is no evidence it influenced the decision either way.

...
Fascism failed to organize Europe because it was essentially a system of the “juste milieu” —a system seeking a middle way between

communism and capitalism. . .

Fascism failed because it did not become explicitly socialist. The narrowness of its nationalist base prevented it from becoming a European socialism . . . "

No. It was successful in the 30's. In the 40's was a war, but Fascism and National-Socialism rule was limited to few European countries and didn't dispose of vast colonial resources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteRights

Germany came very close to winning World War Two even though the Jews were in control of Britain, France, the US and the Soviet Union. Germany had to fight against two superpowers and two major powers. In the last few years new information has come out that Germany may have actually developed a tactical nuke in March 1945, unfortunately too late to alter the course of the war.

I wouldn't be too critical of Fascism or National Socialism just because they lost the war. After all, they were able to overthrow the Jews in Italy and Germany while patriots in Britain and America continue to lose the battle with the Jews.

A German nuclear weapon in March 1945 ?
I doubt it strongly because they lacked resources and the German industries were too busy with war orders.

Any ways, your source says it :

Quote:

Karlsch himself acknowledged that he lacked absolute proof for his claims, and said he hoped his book would provoke further research.

Don't mix wishes with facts.

Fascism wasn't against the Jewish Power. In deed, the ideology was developed by Mussolini and his JEWISH mistress, Margharita Sarfati as they broke away from Socialism.

Even National Socialism wasn't against the Jews in particular but to unite all Germans of Europe and separate them from French/Latins and from Slavs. Antisemitism developed as the Jews were the main resisting power. Remember that part-Jews such are Count von Arco auf Valley and Erich von Salomon were heroes of the Reich even though they didn't act to support directly Hitler's regime.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain's trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.

Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.

The fact is that the Stalin had no intention to attack Western Europe - the Molotov Pact with Germany was something he had no intention to break and until the day before the Germans invaded Russia, Russia supplying Germany with oil, wheat and other resources.

Yes, Russia had made plans to attack nations in Europe, but as War Plan Red shows us - the US had also made plans to attack everyone from Britain to China.

Plans are not evidence of INTENT.

After the thrashing the Russians got at the hands of Finland in the Winter War before WW2 - Stalin would have realised that any plan to attack Europe or Germany was absurd.

I doubt it strongly because they lacked resources and the German industries were too busy with war orders.

....

It's more a question of technical know-how than anything else. Germany acquired a large stockpile of Uranium when they invaded Belgium which had mined it in Africa and there were mines in Czechoslovakia producing more Uranium.

There were two A-bomb projects in Germany. One led by Heisenberg, which typically gets all the historical attention, and another project led by Professor Kurt Diebner, which appears to have led to two nuclear tests.

German scientists were the first to split the atom in 1938. If they had kept that discovery a secret, scientists in Britain and the US would not have even known that an A-bomb was possible.

I think the US picked up German plans for an A-bomb with Operation Paperclip and even then it took them three more months to complete the first large A-bomb on July 15th at Trinity because Diebner's team would not help the Allies, forcing them to figure it out from captured notes and captured A-bomb devices awaiting enough U-235 or plutonium.

Here's a detailed account of radioactive material found near Ohrdruf in Thuringia, that suggests a Uranium A-bomb was set off there:

Germany had an alternate heavy water plant at Leuna's IG Farben Amonia Nitrate works. Another codenamed BECK was situated outside Keil and was built by Dr Paul Harteck. Later the Vermok plant was dismantled and re-erretced at Hechingen, near the site Germany's last reactor. In any case heavy water only mattered if the A-bomb was to be made from Plutonium.

There are several clues suggesting that the bombs tested at Ohrdruf and Rugen were Uranium A-bombs. Germany captured 1,200 tonnes of Uranium from the Congo when they marched into Belgium.

Furthermore Germany principally sourced Uranium ore from the Jach-y-mov mine in western Czechoslovakia. The nazis demanded production of 50 tonnes per year and in 1946 productiondipped to 18 tonnes before rising to 145 tonnes in 1947.

Uranium was refined at Oranienberg by Degaussa and enriched at various sites. At Celle in northern Germany using the Anscholtz & Co Mark III-A type ultracentrifuge and at Kandern using the Mark III-B ultracentrifuge which in today's terms was a P-2 type centrifuge as used by the Iranians.

In a letter from Plenepotentiary for Nuclear sciences Walther Gerlach to Goering's secretary Gonnert in October 1944, Gerlach stated that progress with uranium enrichment for the Atomic bomb was well in hand.

Citing various pages from the Virus House, by David Irving (taken from Gouldsmitt's personal file collection)

You may be thinking 2 'historians' Karlsch and Walker who in 2005 alleged that Diebner's team tested some type of nuclear related device in Ohrdruf, Thuringia. (I think this was also the place that Nick Cook in his book on Zero point Energy said the German carried some radical science experiements)

Diebner's laboratory at Stadtilm was just a few miles east of the Ohrdruf Concentration camp where a blast was said to happen in March 1945.

This is a totally different location to Nick Cook's Nazi Bell project near Swydnica in the former Silesia near it's broder with the Czech republic.

However the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB, Federal Physical and Technical Institute) tested soil samples in the area of the alleged test, but found nothing.

Not correct at all. PTB tested Karlsch's soil samples and found elevated levels of Caesium 137 and Cobolt 60.

PTB dismissed the radioactive traces as likely either coming from Chernobyl fall out or from Soviet era atmospheric tests.

PTB disclosed no evidence of Plutonium Pu239 or Americum 241 which one would expect from a Plutonium A-bomb. This therefore rules out Soviet era nuclear tests, or a Nazi Plutonium weapon.

PTB disclosed no evidence of Caesium 134 which Chernobyl fall out is known to have included. Whilst Caesium -134 would have long since degraded since the accident in 1986 it would have left behind four atoms of Xenon 134 for every 100 atoms of Caesium 137 found at Ohrdruf and there is absolutely no indication of Xe-134.

This is very important. Atomic weapons will produce Caesium 137 but they can't produce Caesium 134 which are only the product of slow neutrons in a reactor. The PTB tests rule out Chernobyl as the source of soil contamination.

This only leaves one possibility and that is that Caesium 137 at Rugen and at Ohrdruf are entirely the product of a Uranium A-bomb.

In fact the radionuclides found at Ohrdruf in 2005 exactly match the results of a fall out survey at Hiroshima conducted in 1983. Remember that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium A-bomb. A similar survey at Nagasaki was quite different due to the differnt type of A-bomb there.